The appeal is preferred by the Executive Officer of the Parimala Ranganathaswami Devasthanam of Tiruvilandur against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O.S. No. 38 of 1956 by which the suit brought by the temple for recovery of Rs.11,462-2-2 was dismissed without costs.

The respondent Muthuswami Iyer took on lease 287 acres and 10 cents of nanja land and 108 acres and 21 cents of punja land situated in Kalukkanimutham village and belonging to the plaintiff-Devaslhanam for five faslis from fasli 1360. According to the terms of the registered lease deed executed by the respondent he agreed to measure an annual quantity of 4,750 kalams of paddy, deliver 375 bundles of straw and pay cash Rs. 600 as rent. There were many other terms in the lease deed as regards allowance claimed by the lessee which it is not necessary for us to refer to at this stage. One of the principal terms of the lease was that the lessee should pay rent unconditionally that is without reference to rajeekamor deivikam. The claim in the plaint included arrears of rent as well as recovery of advances made to the lessee for tasakuli paddy, etc. The main defence taken in the written statement of the defendant was that by Act XIV of 1952 which came into force two years after the lease deed was executed the circumstances and conditions under which the tenant had agreed to pay a fixed rent had been altered and in a way the contract itself had been modified by the said Act. Relief was claimed from the liability to pay the rent stipulated in the lease deed on the basis that by the provisions of that Act no landlord was empowered to claim more than 60 per cent, of the gross produce as rent due. Besides this, relief was also claimed on the basis that in one of the years during the currency of the lease period, a large part of the crop on the demised land was destroyed by the cyclone which hit Tanjore District on 30th November, 1952. Other defences were also raised upon other points which it is not necessary for us at this stage to notice.

The learned Judge in the Court below took the view that, despite the terms of the contract between the parties evidenced by the lease deed, the lease deed was governed by the provisions of Act XIV of 1952 in regard to rent payable and he reduced the rent due by the respondent on the basis that it should conform to the provisions of the Act. He notionally fixed the gross produce calculating it on the basis that the rent agreed to be paid represented 70 per cent, of the gross produce. In this he relied on the usage of the Tanjore District prior to Act XIV of 1952, the landlord’s share of the produce being either 70 percent, or 75 percent, of the gross produce. Having thus arrived notionally at the gross produce, the learned Judge worked out the landlord’s share under the Act, by finding 60 percent, of it and he held that that alone was payable as rent for the last three years of the lease period after the Act came into force. The learned Judge also held that the provisions of the Act did not apply for the first two years of the lease period faslis 1360 and 1361, and he allowed 1he claim of the temple for the arrear claimed for fasli 1361. In fact there was no arrear even according to the plaint for fasli 1360.

The first contention of Mr. Chinnayya Pillai, counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Judge was wrong in applying the provisions of Act XIV of 1952 to this case in the absence of any adjudication by the Conciliation Officer under section 13 of Act XIV of 1952 as to the rent payable. His argument was that in the absence of any adjudication under section 13 of Act XIV of 1952, the right or benefit conferred upon a cultivating tenant by Act XIV of 1952 should not have been granted by a civil Court and the learned Judge ought to have given a decree for the entire amount claimed as rent for the four faslis in the plaint. Mr. Thyaga-rajan, counsel appearing for the respondent contended